The law is generally divided into different "subjects" (or legal disciplines), eg contract, tort, property, criminal, constitutional and administrative law, etc. This is how the law is studied in law schools. Each of these subjects have their fair share of issues that may give rise to disputes. Whether the dispute that needs to be resolved arises from contractual or criminal context (which are two very different areas), it is done by litigation (broadly defined here to include alternative dispute resolutions). So it is more meaningful to say what exactly one does, eg commercial litigation or criminal litigation. Of course, some lawyers try to do everything.

Is this not "useful information for prospective law students, a basic guide to become a lawyer"?

Employment prospects and the nature of legal practice are things that prospective law students would want to know. The cost of legal studies is not cheap. The least is to know what you are getting into.

If subjective opinions are to be refrained, then there is very little to discuss in this thread. I cannot tell someone that X University is better than Y University, or which areas of the law have good prospects.

The only "objective" (or "factual", to be more precise) bits left are the admission requirements. Prospective students should just read post no. 1 or call the LPQB in case of doubts.

"The practice of law is a noble profession".

How would you approach this statement? Assuming that we must assess it objectively, do we refer to the collective attitude of lawyers towards this statement, or the collective attitude of society towards this statement? Even using these apparently objective approaches, they are informed by subjective opinions of individuals forming those groups.

I quote part of post no.1 by you:



I submit that all that I have said fell within the objective and purpose of this thread as stated in para 1.0 in post no.1. Or perhaps not. What appears to be the objective definition may have to be interpreted in light of your subjective opinion. You may want to rework your definition so that people like me can understand.

Perhaps you are not happy that I am trashing your (no longer so) noble profession. If this is the case, then perhaps we could discuss about it. Discussion and opinion-sharing are essential parts of legal study, no?

Since you are the thread starter, I have no intention to usurp your supreme position in this part of the universe. But as a member of the legal profession (I assume), perhaps you may want to demonstrate some ability to reason when trying to constrain another's freedom of expression.

This post has been edited by academiclawyer: Apr 19 2013, 08:00 PM

Deleted [repeated post]

This post has been edited by academiclawyer: Apr 19 2013, 06:58 PM